I assume the conclusion from this email thread is that though the ideais interesting, the complexity added would not be worth the saving of afew bytes.

Anyone do any testing?

I'm also wondering if this would be useful to allow fields larger than1G.

The submitter showed the pathological case where a single char wasstored in a text field, and showed the reduced size (below). There wereno performance numbers given. It seems like an edge case, especiallysince we have a "char" type that is a single byte.

Well, depending on how the patch works I could see it being valuable fortables that have a number of 'short' text fields, where short is lessthan 127 bytes.

I've got some tables like that I can test on, at least to see the sizedifference. Not really sure what a valid performance test would be,though...

I'm wondering if it would be worth trying to organize users to dotesting of stuff like this. I'm sure there's lots of folks who know howto apply a patch and have test data that could benefit from patches likethis. (I'm assuming this patch didn't place any substantial performancepenalties into the backend...)--Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.comPervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461